How Do Theists Separate Fact from Fiction?
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
I'm not sure what you are asking.
I think its the case that (any) faith brings with it a host of facts (or axiomatic truths)
I think this is an interesting dichotomy, and I am not sure what exactly it denotes, although this is a question I myself am interested in and have often asked it.
When I ask someone "How do you distinguish fact from fiction?", by this I mean
"How are you so sure that you are not wrong?"
or "How have you arrived at your level of certainty?"
or even "Why should I believe you? What will happen to me if I don't believe you, if I don't become convinced of your stance as you have presented it so far?"
or "I feel really shitty when someone speaks with such confidence. I wish I could speak with such confidence too."
LG: I'm trying to figure out what a generic "fact" is; what makes something a "fact" as distinguished from "fiction"
Signal: Its a valid question. How does anyone differentiate between fact and fiction? How much of our reality is based on our assumptions of what we consider representative memory of our experience and knowledge?
Signal: Its a valid question. How does anyone differentiate between fact and fiction? How much of our reality is based on our assumptions of what we consider representative memory of our experience and knowledge?
It is a fact that some person has faith.
I didn't say it's not a valid question.
It is related to the bigger issue of what we consider to be "reality" to begin with.
(And when this issue of "what is real" is too difficult to address head on, people tend to address it on an emotional or attitudinal level.)
Most people seem to take for granted that they can differentiate between fact and fiction, between real and unreal.
They like to use those big words, like "sense of objectivity", "rational and informed intelligent decisions".
But few are capable of giving a philosophical and practical explanation, along with a workable instruction on how to actually learn to see that difference between imagination and reality.
why not? god is a thing and you can experience it. that's my doctrine. simple, yet not so simple. hm...:bugeye:
I would be interested in hearing how you do this?
I've never heard that phrase before. I suppose it would depend on what it means. One can believe in a certain fact. One can disbelieve it, also.
I would be interested in how non-theists do this, for example, around their political opinions.
I can only speak for myself and answer: some of them.
Not a big fan of 'faith' though I do think everyone depends on processes that could be called faith - iow beliefs without demonstrable evidence for others.
Must be hard to choose who to vote for, even in local elections.
The paralysis of indecision. What has most fascinated me about the definition of reality is how closely our notions of "reality" [red/green, round, 3D, fruit/vegetable, sweet/sour/bitter] are based on faith in our perceptions.
Its your metaphor, don't bitch at me if you don't like it.
Not at all. It is what was meant, not the saying in and of itself. The referent is the "authority." The fundamental problem with religion is a complete lack of referent for its key pieces, like "god."
Like any one would ever notice the difference.
Sure it is. You can acquire published scientific information by the ton at any library.
I said it was public. I didn't say it was easy or free, though much of it is free.
You bronze age myths haven't progressed.
Show us some application.
Not at all. A pragmatic choice is made from limited choices within a hard dead line.
In short I don't have to know an open field of candidates in depth, I just have to narrow down which of the offered cannon fodder is the least offensive and given the area I live in, that is usually pretty easy since the worst of the idiots are right proud of being stupid, I mean "religious."
Not that they actually are religious, but the local religious people are stupid enough to believe any one drawn to easy power that claims to be religious, must really be religious. And this despite time after time after time their chosen "religious" candidates come back corrupt and laughingly - gay.
You'ld think after 50 years of picking loser after loser they would eventually clue in, but religion seems to destroy your snap.
hey waiiiiit a second:bugeye:, i've actually answered that..
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=94735
hypocrisy?
that wasn't my question?
if atheists differentiated fact from fiction intelligently they wouldn't become theists of some kind?
check the previous thread mister, and unplug your computer power cord before you finish reading it->WARNING
ANGEROUS LEVELS OF LOGIC AND REASONING PRESENT..So there is not one theist who can answer the question "how do theists separate fact from fiction?" even this well???
Not one single straight answer.
Well let me clue you in.
Since you claim god made reality, if god is actual, and you ask him, once he's done kicking your ass for making him look like a moron, he will tell you just what I told you because that is how the reality he supposedly created works - when you want to find the truth you look at what is.
If what you say corresponds to what is, it is true.
If you make up a game with rules, aka a formal system, then something is true within the system if it is coherent and consistant with the rules of the system.
Now if we can agree on physical truth and systemic truth, you godders seem to want to introduce a "spiritual" truth, which is fine, but you need to define it, please do so.
How can a person distinguish "spiritual" truth from madness?
Would you say there is a difference between how you discuss theism, and how, for example, Lightgigantic discusses theism?
How does anyone distinguish anything from anything?
Three general categories
possible facts
probable facts
necessary facts
Commonly atheists will try and play that religion, in its best form, is a possible fact (aka FSM) but an improbable one (aka - all glories to the Vienna Circle and the reductionist model)
Theists counter that it is a necessary one, given that one accrues a certain element of experience.
I don't think I ever alluded to anything like "god production". That's your gem I'm afraid ....
never encountered a normative description in scripture or in the discourses of a saintly person?
notice a strawman?
guess its a question of the values of the beholder ...
well if you want to reintroduce acceptance of authority at this point, there's also a ton of scriptural commentaries out there too
:shrug:
then you agree that it also has a distinct requirement for elements of application?
on the contrary mundane material advancemement has zero scope for progress. A dog is doing its business on four legs and a man is doing generally the same on four wheels
Here's a good general introduction to the normative descriptions you are likely to encounter.
BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
yes, i do. i think that most of what i have to say is a knee-jerk reaction to my experiences. i've tried like hell to explain them to people, even to myself, with very little success. before my experiences occurred, i did theorize about the concept of a god, and i concluded that there probably was one. it made sense to me, but i still didn't have any real proof of that in my life. now i do. and that proof overrides any theory or concept i could ever entertain. so i don't bother. i mean, i might throw an opinion out there every once in a while about this or that, but those are just opinions. when it comes to what god has shown me, and the evidence god's presented to me in my life, it's almost impossible to share. and even when i try, most people just can't relate. i just end up alienating people and isolating myself.
LG's responses are very intellectual and very sound. mine, generally, are not. LG is a much better communicator than i am, and is much better at providing a well thought out basis for his/her arguments. whereas, the more i tried to figure out my experiences, and explain them to myself and others, the more frustrated and isolated i became. so i stopped trying to do that.
LG has expressed to me before that he/she wishes for some whacked out experience like i've had, or even just something a bit more tangible to relate to. and i don't doubt that might happen. but i also think that we all have a unique purpose and path in life. and what makes sense to me doesn't have to make sense to everyone else. i think that god realizes that we're individuals and makes itself known to us in different ways, and i think that's awesome. i think that's the way it should be. no one could ever take away what happened to me. no one could ever convince me of this or that. no one could ever negate my proof.
the moral of my story is that god is not an intellectual endeavor. god is not a theory to prove or disprove. in other words, don't try to figure it out. just keep an open mind and an open heart and go with the flow. and if you're going to expend any effort trying to figure something out, focus on your own intentions.